论恶意透支型信用卡诈骗罪条件性出罪机制的重构

发布时间：2018-08-19 10:50

【摘要】：近年来,我国刑罚不断向轻缓化的方向发展,为了适应这一发展趋势,刑法或司法解释对某些经济类犯罪作了出罪规定,恶意透支型信用卡诈骗罪就是其中之一。根据相关规定,恶意透支是指持卡人以非法占有为目的,超过规定期限或规定限额透支,经发卡行两次催收后仍不归还的行为。相对于其它类型的信用卡诈骗罪,恶意透支是“真人真卡”型的信用卡诈骗行为,其社会危害性较小。鉴于此,我国法律对恶意透支设置了较高的入罪起点,并通过司法解释对其设置了出罪条件,这就是恶意透支型信用卡诈骗罪的条件性出罪机制。该机制的存在具有重大意义,这不仅是我国轻刑化的体现,更重要的是对一些犯罪行为人予以出罪,能够节约司法资源,并且避免行为人贴上犯罪的标签,是对人权的保障。但这些意义的实现以条件性出罪机制的适用为前提,否则就是空谈。我们通过对河南省337例判决书的实证研究发现,恶意透支条件性出罪机制的适用效果并不理想,337例竟无一人被宣告无罪,这表明恶意透支的出罪判决难。这种现象的存在是不科学的,是由多方面的原因造成的,既有恶意透支条件性出罪机制内的原因,又有机制外的原因。机制内的原因主要是司法解释对时间条件规定的严格性;机制外的原因主要是由于出罪理念的缺乏、《刑法》第13条“但书”条款规定的模糊不清、侦查中心主义诉讼模式的影响等因素,使得法院无法适用“但书”条款出罪。此外,此种不科学现象的存在不仅无法实现其重大意义,反而会产生一些无法估量的危害。恶意透支出罪判决难不仅侵犯了刑法的保障法地位,而且减损了刑法的效益,更重要的是它导致了刑法机能的失调,侵犯了犯罪行为人的人权。因此,为了消除这些危害,有必要对恶意透支的条件性出罪机制进行重构,包括实体法上和程序法上的重构。除了改变“重入罪,轻出罪”的思想外,实体法上要明确“但书”条款能够作为判决的依据;程序法上要完善侦查中心主义诉讼模式,并对公检法三机关具体的出罪路径予以重构。因此,本文将采用实证研究的方法,说明恶意透支出罪判决难的体现,并对其原因和危害予以论述分析,最后对恶意透支的条件性出罪机制进行重构。通过重构的这些措施,我们希望能够对恶意透支的出罪有所帮助,能够实现情理与法理的统一,能够促进恶意透支立法与司法实践的不断成熟与完善。
[Abstract]:In recent years, the penalty of our country has been developing to the direction of lightening. In order to adapt to this development trend, the criminal law or judicial explanation provides for some economic crimes, and the crime of malicious overdraft credit card fraud is one of them. According to the relevant regulations, malicious overdraft refers to the behavior of the cardholder who, for the purpose of illegal possession, overdraws beyond the prescribed time limit or limits and is not returned after two calls from the issuing bank. Compared with other types of credit card fraud, malicious overdraft is a real credit card fraud, and its social harm is relatively small. In view of this, the law of our country set a higher starting point for malicious overdraft, and set up the crime conditions through judicial explanation, which is the conditional crime mechanism of malicious overdraft credit card fraud. The existence of this mechanism is of great significance, which is not only the embodiment of light punishment in our country, but also the protection of human rights by committing crimes against some perpetrators, saving judicial resources, and avoiding the perpetrators from affixing the label of crime. But the realization of these meanings is based on the application of conditional crime mechanism, otherwise it is empty talk. Through the empirical study of 337 judgments in Henan Province, it is found that the application effect of the malicious overdraft conditional crime mechanism is not ideal. None of the 337 cases has been acquitted, which indicates that it is difficult to judge the malicious overdraft. The existence of this phenomenon is unscientific and is caused by various reasons, both within the mechanism of malicious overdraft and outside the mechanism. The main reason within the mechanism is the strictness of the judicial interpretation to the time condition, the reason outside the mechanism is mainly due to the lack of the concept of the crime, the ambiguity of the article 13 "proviso" of the Criminal Law, The influence of the mode of investigative centralism makes the court unable to apply the proviso clause. In addition, the existence of this unscientific phenomenon can not only achieve its great significance, but also produce some immeasurable harm. The difficulty of malicious overdraft judgment not only infringes the legal status of criminal law, but also detracts from the benefit of criminal law. More importantly, it leads to the maladjustment of criminal law function and infringes on the human rights of the perpetrator. Therefore, in order to eliminate these hazards, it is necessary to reconstruct the conditional crime mechanism of malicious overdraft, including the reconstruction of substantive law and procedural law. In addition to changing the idea of "re-incriminating and decriminalizing", the substantive law should make clear that the proviso clause can be used as the basis for judgment, and the procedural law should perfect the mode of investigative centrism litigation. And to the public security bureau, procuratorate, court three organs specific crime path to be reconstructed. Therefore, this paper will use the method of empirical research, explain the malevolent overdraft sentence difficult to reflect, and analyze its causes and hazards, and finally to the malicious overdraft conditional crime mechanism reconstruction. Through the reconstruction of these measures, we hope to be able to help the malicious overdraft crime, can achieve the unity of reason and law, can promote the malicious overdraft legislation and judicial practice of continuous maturity and perfection.
【学位授予单位】：吉林大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：D924.3

【相似文献】